laws.  In other words, the thousands of earmarks that committees like Armed Services and Appropriations add to committee reports and "joint explanatory statements" that accompany bills in their final form would also not be "earmarks."  Only a tiny fraction of the 2,847earmarks CRS found in the 2006 defense appropriations bill, certainly fewer than 50, appear in the text of the bill, not accompanying reports.  Only that tiny fraction would be covered by the Lott/Collins proposal, and of those only the ones intended for a "non-federal entity."

People familiar with the Lott/Collins and McCain bills predict that there will be an attempt, probably by McCain, to close the loopholes in the Lott/Collins bill by requiring that any earmark to actually receive federal spending must appear in bill text, and to cover federal, as well as non-federal, earmarks.  In short, these "toughening" amendments would merely change how pork is displayed and would not require that it be objectively evaluated or contracted with any due diligence whatsoever.  There is no plan to put real teeth in the McCain definition of "pork."  If these planned amendments are successful, the ultimate result would be to let pork continue to grow; it would first be endorsed by the Armed Services Committee and it would then be listed in the text of appropriations bills, not just reports.  Perhaps they should rename the bill; "The Putting of Lipstick on the Pig Act of 2006" would be appropriate.

Perhaps, happily, none of this is likely to pass.  Ostensibly because it was being burdened with an amendment on the " Dubai ports" issue, the Lott/Collins/McCain legislation was pulled from being the pending business of the Senate, and the body moved on to debating other legislation.  It is entirely possible that senators did not want to endure even the cosmetic earmarking requirements to be imposed and/or the other lobbying reforms (such as they may be) in the bill.  It is unclear if the bill will return to become Senate business, but if it does, the game plan is quite clearly to keep the Senate pork machine well greased.

To view the VCRS report on 2006 earmarks, click here .  To view the CRS report on 1994 to 2005 earmarks, click here .